Why have an expensive camera?

Question

One can do a great deal now on the computer with images from a low cost camera. Example by stitching 9 shots together from a basic 1.3 M pixel camera the photo turns out as almost 12 M pixel!

An expensive camera is heavey and costs a lot to repair. A cheap camera is less likely to be slolen and you would not be that bothered is you dropped it in the sea. I did a great panorama by pushing my camera up the chimly like a sweeps brush and takiung photos from my roof. I would not have done that if the camera cost 100's of pounds

Answer 1

You kind of answered your own question. (and I'll bet that was your intention).

All the work it took to get your 12 meg picture could have been done with one click. For some, that, alone makes it worth the extra cost.

Any camera, film or digital, is basically a lens and medium to capture the image. I have made many pinhole cameras that didn't even have that lens. Any features more than this will add to the cost. The ability to adjust focus, exposure and speed means, for me and many others, greater creative control over the images. There are lots of purists who demand that printed images should not have any further "tweaking" done.

I am not ashamed to say that I do plenty of adjustments in Photoshop. (saved my butt on many ocasions) However, the work-through process is much smoother and faster.

What Photoshop, or any other image editing application cannot do is improve pixels that do not exist. Badly underexposed, or totally blown out overexposures create a lot of unusable "real estate" in the image. The more I can do in the camera, the less needs be done post shoot. It takes less than 10 seconds to bracket an exposure (one shot where I think it should be, one shot darker, one shot lighter)

Having said all that, I have to give you credit for some amazingly creative work with the equipment you have. I hope you consider assembling a portfolio of images you've captured, either in unusual ways, or images you wouldn't have risked with expensive gear. Many artists have done the same with the previously described pin hole cameras.

Congrats, and good luck!

Answer 2

There's a camera for each level of photographer. I'm not sure what you mean by really expensive Nikon? Nikon sells cameras from basic $100 point and shoots, to $6000 professional dSLR's and everything in between. If you are intrigued by an idea of being able to take beautiful pictures - you need some knowledge and experience in photography as a main asset, as it won't matter as much what camera you'll be using, as how well you know what you're doing with that camera. That said - some cameras just don't have enough controls or capabilities you'd need to apply all of your skills. However, once you talk about dSLR - you'll really be almost on a level field with entry level D40 and professional D3. So to answer your question - professional and avid amateurs buy more expensive cameras for more controls without getting to menus, more rugged and sturdy bodies, ability to use more lenses, faster frame rates and lately - full frame sensors, etc. The basic concept of taking a photograph is the same, for as long as you have a dSLR. So for the level you describe - a Nikon D40 (can be bought for under $450 with a basic lens) is quite adequate, and has enough potential for years and years of learning and improving. Going with more expensive cameras - I would suggest that you wait until you know enough to even see the difference, which again, is not as much in image quality, as is in shooting technology... Invest the rest of your money in good photography books, or even better a photography class or two. That will help you improve your results much more dramatically than the most expensive camera you can buy..... ...this is because if you give the finest set of surgical tools, a state of the art operating room and a great assisting staff to someone who's never done a surgery, I doubt they'd be able to do a procedure even as simple (in doctor's understanding) as operating on an appendix. Same with photography - a person not knowing what they are doing, won't be able to get those great shots you see in magazines, even with $15,000 worth of photo equipment. On the other hand a professional photographer with a point&shoot camera is likely to get a shot you'd be amazed that camera could produce! LEM.

Answer 3

I have owned a lot of digital cameras. From inexpensive point-and-shoots to top of the line Nikons......and in may cases you are right. Why pay for the extra weight...high cost of repair..ect.

Well that extra weight is generally taken up in large and longer lasting battery life. If I could get a few hours out of my P&S I can get nearly a week of hard shooting with the Nikon.

Yes they cost less to repair. But the more expensive camera is worth repairing. And in theory I should not have to repair it as often. Or it might cost less if I happen to drop it "just a little bit" as my next door neighbor did last week. This has been the case for me...so far.

Perhaps one of the most dramatic differences I can tell you about is shutter lag....this drives me nuts with the P&S. I push the button and then wait...and wait... and it finally decides to release. (I know this is a bit of exaggeration put it just feels that way.) I can't tell you the number of phots I've lost to this problem. Cheap cameras are working on this lag problem but I need a solution now. The higher end camera are almost instantanious. This is a MUST for a sports shooter.

As far as nine shot stitched together and having a 12M image....but the relsolution is still that of a 1.3M image! I do the same thing with my P&S and they are fun to lok at. But for work I have stitched together 10-20 shots at high rez with the Nikon and get 60-90M files at 300dpi (big difference).

Now let me say that everyone doesn't need or even want a high end pro camera.....but the reasons they cost more are because they are called upon to create images that demand quality and control.

Answer 4

Most of the cost of an expensive camera is in the quality of the lens and in the extra facilities, such as Aperture and Shutter priority and also, of course in the better sensor and associated electronics which has less tendency to fringing and better response in low light.

If you don't need all these things, that is fine! I now have 3 digital cameras, one of which is a cheap 3 Mpx one which fits in a shirt pocket and which I often keep in the glove compartment of the car.

The other two are a 5Mpx Olympus (which was my first digital camera) and a 9Mpx Nikon. My next step (if I choose to take it) will be an SLR digital back with interchangeable lenses but I could only justify that if I achieve some sales of my work.

For general use, a 3.1Mpx point-and-shoot camera, with a 3x zoom, will serve most people quite adequately. That size will print quite acceptably up to 10" x 8" and most people only require 5" x 7" or 6" x 4" prints for an album. If you are ONLY going to put your photos on a web page or view them on a computer, then 1.3Mpx is adequate (though I contend you get better pictures from a larger size reduced).

Answer 5

It depends what you want to photograph.

Stitching together does not give you 12M pixel. it gives you a larger picture made up of 1.3 M pixel segments thus it is still a 1.3 M pixel photo. The measurement is a measure of density not a mathematical equation.

I like photographing birds (feathered kind) I therefore need a camera and a very expensive long distance image stabilised lens. I like photographing insects and individual blooms so need a close up lens. Having a good SLR digital camera I do not have to play around on the computer I get a good photo from the camera. Small digitals just cannot do that.

I have a small cheap underwater camera and a small cheapish digital as well.

I have gone in for photo competitions and won some. Most people only need simple shots and cheap digitals are quite good for that.

Answer 6

The lens on an SLR digital will be far superior to that of a compact.

Images from a compact are OK up to 10" x 8" whereas those from an SLR may be blown up to 20" x 16" or larger while retaining image quality suitable for exhibition.

Should your compact develop a fault you may as well buy another as the cost of repair would be a large percentage of the original cost.

How many camera owners want to indulge in stitching a series of photographs together?

Every format camera has its devotees and it's a question of horses for courses.

I would be bothered if I dropped my compact into the sea as I would lose all the images on the 1GB flash card.

I am not knocking compact cameras as most produce excellent results for general purposes.

Answer 7

i don't know much about digital cameras but from my days of 35mm SLRs a more expensive camera was more reliable and better quality in terms of lens sharpness and colour balance

i'm sure the same is true today

why not compromise and have an expensive high quality camera for the serious stuff and a cheapie for the risky stuff ?

Answer 8

It depends on the quality of pictures you want. The camera with the best lens is what I look for. I like pictures that are sharp at the edges and as few artifacts as possible in low light conditions.

Answer 9

Generally, expensive means better quality, especially in film cameras. WIth digital, it doesn't really matter. I do own an expensive digital, but because I wanted an SLR. I am comfortable with them.

Answer 10

To take expensive photos??!... :) Cheap is good, or shall I say, inexpensive.